Tuesday, January 26, 2010

«The Philosophical Glass of Water»

Points of View

  • Optimist: "The glass is half-full."
  • Pessimist: "The glass is half-empty."
  • Realist: "Yep. That's a glass, alright."
  • Idealist: "One day, cold-fusion from a glass of water will provide unlimited energy and end war."
  • Capitalist: "If I bottled this and gave it a New Agey sounding name, I could make a fortune."
  • Communist: "This drink belongs to every single one of us in equal measure."
  • Conspiracist: "The government is fluoridating the water for mind-control purposes."
  • Sexist: "This glass isn't gonna refill itself, honeybun..."
  • Nihilist: "The glass does not exist, and neither do I."
  • Opportunist: "There's a funny t-shirt in here somewhere."

I think I'd be a smart-ass and be a Realist. What are you?


  1. The "smart-ass" point of view wasn't on there?

    Other points of view -

    Union: "This glass was made by exploiting child labor in Canada."
    LGBT: "Obviously the glass won't find an opposite sex partner."
    Goreite: "Fossil fuels were used to make this glass that released green house glasses which threaten the existence of man-(and woman-)kind."
    Limbaughism: "If the government would quit screwing up the markets, we would have a high-quality crystal glass for the price of cheap plastic junk."

    My point of view changes day by day, but usually it is this:

    "I am thankful that God gave me a glass with clean Sierra water delivered via the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system."

  2. @ Looney: What I meant was the Realist point of view seemed like a smart-ass response.

    I was debating whether or not to even say anything, but did God build the aqueduct?

  3. @Marf, ok, now I understand!

    Of course Christians view God as the ultimate cause of everything, so - in a similar manner - perhaps an atheist would give thanks to the Big Bang? The difference being that Christians believe God created the laws of physics, which the designers of the aqueduct were then able to use, whereas the Big Bang was only subject to the laws of physics.

  4. @ Looney: Perhaps an atheist would give thanks to the big bang if he/she believed in a deterministic universe, where everything that has or ever will happen was predefined at the time of the big bang.

    I however, think there is an element of pure randomness that shapes the universe at a quantum level. Nothing is absolute. It would explain why matter is not spread perfectly even as it should have been by the big bang.

    I love how a discussion about a philosophical glass of water turns into one about the origin of the universe. And in no more than 4 comments at that.

  5. And fuel for the never ending war of religion versus science is added to the fire :D

    But me being atheist, im gunna have to side with marf on this one lol

    - Six Legions


Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

»» «« »Home«